It is a long standing adage in my family, do not speak ill of the dead. I believe that is because whatever faults and fallacies connected with that person are buried with them. It goes hand in hand with advice for the living, if you have nothing nice to say about the person, say nothing at all. I believe all that should be doubly true when you didn't know the person personally. When the only way we have to judge is by their perceived actions and the opinions of others.
Much of that is ignored today, sensibilities having changed somewhat over time. Well, from my view a lack of good sense being missing anyway. What purpose does it serve to disparage the deceased? Whatever actions they have taken are now forever in the past, as there is no future for them, not here on this earth anyway. That isn't to say an accurate biography of their lives shouldn't be offered. On the contrary. their accomplishments as well their failures should share equal billing. No one is all good or bad. But it is our custom to celebrate the good in a person once they have passed and bury the bad.
It is also true that those faults, whatever they may have been, will not stay buried for long. The idea of not speaking ill of the dead only applies in the immediate aftermath of their passing. Once the ceremonies are over, the grave covered and an appropriate amount of time has passed, the speaking will begin. In todays' world it won't be all that long a time. Take the latest two " celebrities " as an example, Aretha Franklin and John McCain. Are made for television movies far off? And movies showing all aspects of their personal lives will be among them. Yes, I'm certain there will be more than one, each. The outpouring of praise for Aretha was overwhelming. Hours of news time and interviews with all the legends of music chiming in. Social media was flooded with pictures and tributes. But I question why was their there no such fuss made while she lived? John McCain is being declared a national hero, based in part because he was a POW. His record of service in the Senate is being praised and lauded as a shining example of patriotism and commitment to the nation by the same people advocating for term limits on that office. But, in the case of John McCain there was much controversary while he served. I only mention these as examples.
All of this was brought to mind as I watched the evening news. Yes, the news was reporting that the Flag at the capital had been raised to full staff and then subsequently ordered , by the president, back to half staff. The innuendo in that story was that the President had ordered it raised as an insult to the memory of John McCain. Only later, after his advisors convinced him to do the right thing did he have it lowered once again. Well, I just question the whole story. I wonder how much direct input the President has in all of that in the first place. Yes, I know it is the president that has the power to order the flag raised or lowered. But do you think he actually does that? Wouldn't you believe he has people for that? I'm certain there are folks in the white house that observe and know all the proper protocol for every occasion or incident. I don't know every minute detail of everything happening in the white house on a day to day basis. I do know there is a time limit for the flag to remain at half staff before it must be raised once again. I don't know the details of that protocol however, do you? Or are you just going by what you heard on the news or social media? And that's my point. I remember when the news was intended to inform. That was their purpose. They provided you with all the pertinent information so YOU could form your own opinion, make your own judgement. Now, the news presents their opinion. They may or may not include the facts.
The times they are achangin". Bob Dylan wrote that line and it was just as true then as now. There was a time in America when the news didn't speak ill of the President without having all the facts before them. There was no speculation, no mind reading going on. The news reported on what the President actually said or did. It was left up to you to decide whether it was good or bad. Yes, I was taught to not speak ill of the dead and to respect the offices held by our elected officials. It didn't matter if he was the local cop, or the president of the United States, you respected that office. You didn't have to like the person holding that office, but you had to respect that office. But today we shout about respect all the time, we insist upon respect, we march for respect, we hold rallies, we even take a knee demanding respect, while being disrespectful! I seriously question how many actually understand what respect really is. I question that because I'm sure not seeing any on display. Respect isn't reverence! But perhaps a man named Bryant McGill expressed it clearly when he said, " one the most sincere forms of respect is actually listening to what another has to say." I would add that respect entails stating all the facts, leaving nothing out. " The omission of truth is the greatest disrespect we can perpetuate against our fellow man. " ( A.B. Reichart )
Much of that is ignored today, sensibilities having changed somewhat over time. Well, from my view a lack of good sense being missing anyway. What purpose does it serve to disparage the deceased? Whatever actions they have taken are now forever in the past, as there is no future for them, not here on this earth anyway. That isn't to say an accurate biography of their lives shouldn't be offered. On the contrary. their accomplishments as well their failures should share equal billing. No one is all good or bad. But it is our custom to celebrate the good in a person once they have passed and bury the bad.
It is also true that those faults, whatever they may have been, will not stay buried for long. The idea of not speaking ill of the dead only applies in the immediate aftermath of their passing. Once the ceremonies are over, the grave covered and an appropriate amount of time has passed, the speaking will begin. In todays' world it won't be all that long a time. Take the latest two " celebrities " as an example, Aretha Franklin and John McCain. Are made for television movies far off? And movies showing all aspects of their personal lives will be among them. Yes, I'm certain there will be more than one, each. The outpouring of praise for Aretha was overwhelming. Hours of news time and interviews with all the legends of music chiming in. Social media was flooded with pictures and tributes. But I question why was their there no such fuss made while she lived? John McCain is being declared a national hero, based in part because he was a POW. His record of service in the Senate is being praised and lauded as a shining example of patriotism and commitment to the nation by the same people advocating for term limits on that office. But, in the case of John McCain there was much controversary while he served. I only mention these as examples.
All of this was brought to mind as I watched the evening news. Yes, the news was reporting that the Flag at the capital had been raised to full staff and then subsequently ordered , by the president, back to half staff. The innuendo in that story was that the President had ordered it raised as an insult to the memory of John McCain. Only later, after his advisors convinced him to do the right thing did he have it lowered once again. Well, I just question the whole story. I wonder how much direct input the President has in all of that in the first place. Yes, I know it is the president that has the power to order the flag raised or lowered. But do you think he actually does that? Wouldn't you believe he has people for that? I'm certain there are folks in the white house that observe and know all the proper protocol for every occasion or incident. I don't know every minute detail of everything happening in the white house on a day to day basis. I do know there is a time limit for the flag to remain at half staff before it must be raised once again. I don't know the details of that protocol however, do you? Or are you just going by what you heard on the news or social media? And that's my point. I remember when the news was intended to inform. That was their purpose. They provided you with all the pertinent information so YOU could form your own opinion, make your own judgement. Now, the news presents their opinion. They may or may not include the facts.
The times they are achangin". Bob Dylan wrote that line and it was just as true then as now. There was a time in America when the news didn't speak ill of the President without having all the facts before them. There was no speculation, no mind reading going on. The news reported on what the President actually said or did. It was left up to you to decide whether it was good or bad. Yes, I was taught to not speak ill of the dead and to respect the offices held by our elected officials. It didn't matter if he was the local cop, or the president of the United States, you respected that office. You didn't have to like the person holding that office, but you had to respect that office. But today we shout about respect all the time, we insist upon respect, we march for respect, we hold rallies, we even take a knee demanding respect, while being disrespectful! I seriously question how many actually understand what respect really is. I question that because I'm sure not seeing any on display. Respect isn't reverence! But perhaps a man named Bryant McGill expressed it clearly when he said, " one the most sincere forms of respect is actually listening to what another has to say." I would add that respect entails stating all the facts, leaving nothing out. " The omission of truth is the greatest disrespect we can perpetuate against our fellow man. " ( A.B. Reichart )
No comments:
Post a Comment